The Associated Press reports that
Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The VRWC echo chamber is dutifully putting out the word that security concerns about the United Arab Emirates managing major American ports was just so much scare-mongering.
As I noted at the end of this post, some smart people have been saying this deal wouldn’t really compromise port security. But even if we take security issues off the table, there are other reasons to be alarmed about the UAE ports deal.
For example, note the second and third grafs in the AP story:
The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.
But even if the fears are more nativist than real, it seems like the White House will still not leave critics hanging — if nothing else, on old-fashioned and true-to-form insider and cronyism grounds. …
… The failure to require the company to keep business records on US soil sounds like a pretty open invitation to flout US law as near as I can tell. Forget terrorism. This is the sort of innovative business arrangement I would think a number of Bush-affiliated American companies might want to get in on. Perhaps Halliburton could be domiciled in Houston, pay its taxes in Bermuda, do its business in Iraq and keep its business records in Jordan.
What a tangled web. It certainly appears that the UAE has us wrapped around their little fingers, doesn’t it? And it’s not just that they are “both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem.” They are holding something else over our heads as well (again via Atrios):
But he said he would withhold judgment on the deal’s national security implications until after today’s briefing. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region, Warner noted. He added: “If they say they have not been treated fairly in this, we run the risk of them pulling back some of that support at a critical time of the war.”
This is obviously a very complicated relationship, which explains why Bush was singing kumbaaya around the drum circle yesterday asking everyone to give peace a chance.
See also Jane Hamsher at firedoglake. And if you missed David Sirota on Countdown last night, you can find a link to the video on his blog. David discusses other quid-pro-quo business arrangements the White House has going on with the UAE. There should be a transcript of this program available later today at the MSNBC site.
Further, I’ve yet to see significant follow up to the fact that two administration officials, Treasury Secretary John Snow in particular, who helped put this deal together have a vested interest in the outcome. Nor have I seen a satisfactory answer to the charge that the deal was shoved through without observing a legally mandated review period. Once again, it seems the Bush White House thinks those pesky little legal details don’t apply to them.
It also seems to me this episode relates to what I wrote last night about a column by David Ignatius in the Washington Post. Trying to explain why so many in the Middle East are turning toward Islamic nationalism, Ignatius writes,
… as elites around the world become more connected with the global economy, they become more disconnected from their own cultures and political systems. The local elites “lose touch with what’s going on around them,” opening up a vacuum that is filled by religious parties and sectarian groups, Sidawi contends. The modernizers think they are plugging their nations into the global economy, but what’s also happening is that they are unplugging themselves politically at home.
Sidawi’s theory — that connectedness produces a political disconnect — helps explain some of what we see in the Middle East. Take the case of Iran: A visitor to Tehran in 1975 would have thought the country was rushing toward the First World. The Iranian elite looked and talked just like the Western bankers, business executives and political leaders who were embracing the shah’s modernizing regime. And yet a few years later, that image of connectedness had been shattered by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution, whose aftershocks still rumble across the region. The Iranian modernizers had lost touch with the masses. That process has been repeated in Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority — where the secular elites who talked the West’s line have proved to be politically weak.
I think there’s a variation of this same dynamic going on here. We have, on the one hand, the corporate rush toward globalization to maximize profits, enabled by Washington politicians from both parties. But we also have, on the other hand, politicians who play on our concerns about this process to get themselves elected. Democrats have to mollify the old hard-hat, Union base as their manufacturing jobs are outsourced. And many Republicans are walking a policy tightrope — exploiting nationalism and xenophobia to get themselves re-elected even as, behind closed doors, they work on behalf of global corporate power.
Digby brings up a good example of the latter:
Bush has been playing politics with this complicated situation for years now, saying things like “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” He spent the entire presidential campaign taunting John Kerry for allegedly requiring a “global test” and using his applause lines like a bludgeon:
I will never hand over America’s security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America’s interests at heart.
… the senator would have America bend over backwards to satisfy a handful of governments with agendas different from our own.
This is my opponent’s alliance-building strategy: brush off your best friends, fawn over your critics. And that is no way to gain the respect of the world.
More examples where that came from.
Now, the question is, will the nationalistic, xenophobic Bush base be able to rewire themselves and think “War With Oceana — So Yesterday“? Or will other politicians, seeing an opportunity, attempt to attack Bush from the right to siphon off some of his supporters?
Unrelated: This is a hoot.
Update: See Claudia Long: ‘When assholes collide: Bush, Dubai, corporatists and the right-wing noise machine‘
My goodness big surprise Bush lied again. I am sure he prays for forgivness every night. Now will Congress be able to stop this evil from coming in. Really doesn’t matter what Americans think anymore it is all being done for us. I am sure Bush and his father are planning the further of the Bush Dynasty. Best thing that should happen is that the Bush girls never have children and this sick family will die out and the rest will turn to democrates.
I’ve been watching the hearing on C-SPAN led by Chair, Senator Warner. He is Chair of the Armed Services Committee. It’s all just another “show”. It made me sick when Warner started with a message from Bush stating that he would not condone anything that would harm national security! Also, Sen Warner thanked two of the witnesses for meeting with him two days ago to brief him in full about the program. Translation: They had to get their stories together because the shit hit the fan. He further stated that we need to get the complete facts revealed to the public. Oh, yes!
Oh, now he is starting on the press by reading headlines but says, he is not trying to blame the press.
One old fart witness, Secretary England, defended the agreement and said that the UAE has been our friend. He is also stating that any one of the people involved in approving the agreement didn’t bring up any problems.
Again, as I stated somewhere on this blog yesterday, there is a statute that requires a 45-day delay. Senator Clinton mentioned this statute today. The statute states that if an agreement could adversely affect national security, there must be a delay of 45-days for investigation. Robert Kimmitt, Deputy Treasury Secretary also is saying, “no one brought up any concerns”. Dimwit Kimmitt tried to put an “adjective” into the wording of the statute which Senator Clinton pointed out did not exist. It is a mandatory law. Now Kimmitt is stating we interepreted it differently. What bullshit, they totally ignored it.
Another serious problem, UAE recognized and acknowledged the Taliban. Oh, wait a minute now they don’t!
Maha,
This whole port deal (and the way administration with help from the MSM is spinning it) is very fascinating to me. I mean many of these people (O’reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Barnes, Hume, you know the crowd) have been inciting anti-Arab (i.e. non-Christian) sentiment in this country since their holy day 9-11. Didn’t Ann Coulter say they should all be rounded up and converted to Christianity? Didn’t they defend torture by pointing out the ruthless animalistic beheadings? Haven’t they been referring to Palestinian citizens as “gunman†and “militants†for the last decade? Now they have the balls to call people that are against this port deal racists? Their hypocrisy is only surpassed by their ignorance. I must admit however it is fun to watch them swim upstream for a change.
A useful way to understand what’s going in re the connectedness issue was explained in David Korten’s When Corporations Rule the World. His explanation is especially useful if you ever were a Trekkie.
In his book, he describes an original Star Trek TV episode called The Cloud Minders which was about a global elite that literally floated in the clouds, in a beautiful city called “Stratos”. On the planet’s surface and below, in its mines, labored a working class who made Stratos possible. As Mr Spock presciently said, nearly 40 years ago,
This troubled planet is a place of the most violent contrasts. Those who receive the rewards are totally separated from those who shoulder the burdens. It is not a wise leadership.
Others have further explained this global elite, how they may have originated from specific cultures and geographies, but how they are now “planetary citizens” of sorts, owing allegience to no geography or culture. They float over the planet, in their own Stratos, picking the best fruit and buying the cheapest labor, cocooned from any understanding or caring of the human cost of this arrangement.
This all rings of “how stupid do they think we are?” Even the evening news last night was all, “Um, what?” about the port deal. I mean, let’s break this down: Some critics are pointing out that a number of 9/11 terrorists came from UAE. So the response is it’s racist to blame a whole country for the sins of a couple of guys and that the US is still handling security so security and terrorism aren’t concerns. Fair enough. But if you make a career of making Americans fear and hate anyone who looks vaguely Middle Eastern, and then make a lucrative deal with a Middle Eastern country that may or may not have ties to terrorist groups, there has to be someone in middle America going, “Uh, you guys? Something’s not right here.”
Not to mention that Bush using his veto on this of all issues… the first thing out of the mouth of whichever reporter covered the story on NBC last night was basically “cronyism.” Think the media’s catching on? (Not really, since “US agencies will handle security, so we’re still safe” was the last word.)
I’m not really swallowing Bush’s fear tactics. I know that there is a threat out there and I know that it is greater now than it was when he was elected but I still don’t think that every Arab it out to get me. And even after all of his hyperbole on how afraid we should be, now we find, neither does Bush.
An interesting revelation would be, what other security based corporations do (expecially Saudie where most of the hijackers came from) Arabs own in america? Do they own air lines? Chemical companies? Bio labs? Security companies? And if so, how do we separate good Arabs from those who would harm us? We can’t just throw out all Arabs simply because of the color of their skin or their religion. It is really a dilema.
Shelley,
“We can’t just throw out all Arabs simply because of the color of their skin or their religion. It’s really a dilemma.” I don’t see the dilemma. Of course no ethnic group should be discriminated against for any reason, least of all their skin pigment or spiritual leanings. I disagree with this “port deal” for the same reasons that I drive a Chevy and don’t shop at Wal-Mart. This free trade mentality at all costs is not good for the middle class engine that used to be “America”. I think the fact that the “Administration” supports this deal only serves to point out the hypocrisy of recent history. I mean how many “Arabs” have lost their lives and or freedom since 9-11. It’s better to kill them over there than to battle them here? It seems to me that this whole thing has nothing to do racism at all. It’s all about corporate greed. You see lower class Arabs are disaffected potential terrorists that need to be dealt with preemptively while the cash soaked elite towel heads are our friends. I fear this is just the latest example of crony capitalism, and if progressive politicians want to hold these crony’s accountable they should shove this whole thing right up G.W’s ass.
#4
Great analogy, Alyosha! That episode rang true with me back then and it rings true today. (Roddenberry was a genius.) But as for today, we’re merely seeing a modern version of what has taken place throughout most of human history. Will we ever learn? We were struggling for a balance for a little while, but we’ve let the culture of “consumerism†seduce us until I fear it’s probably too late. That book by Korten looks fascinating. I’ll check that out.
(“Consumerism” always sounded suspiciously like “Bread and Circuses” to me.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_katrina;_ylt=Ak9RmxWV25iab.QAvln8C06s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
Bush on CNN now to talk about The War on Terror. He is talking before an American Legion Gathering. He is also going to bring up the port agreement issue.
Great article by James Wolcott, “T BOGG X 2”. NOTE: uncledad, Wolcott is talking about the speech that Bush gave in Indiana.